scholarly journals Comparing open reduction and internal fixation versus closed reduction using dual-point distraction and percutaneous fixation for treating calcaneal fractures

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-200
Author(s):  
Sefa Giray Batıbay
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. 418-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haroon Majeed ◽  
James Barrie ◽  
Wendy Munro ◽  
Donald McBride

The aim of this article is to systematically identify and analyse research evidence available to compare the outcomes of minimally invasive reduction and percutaneous fixation (MIRPF) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Articles from 2000 to 2016 were searched through MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge using Boolean logic and text words. Of the 570 articles identified initially, nine were selected including three randomized controlled trials and six retrospective comparative studies. All nine studies had a total of 1031 patients with 1102 displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Mean follow-up was 33 months. Of these, 602 (54.6%) were treated with MIRPF and 500 (45.4%) were treated with ORIF. Overall incidence of wound-related complications in patients treated with MIRPF was 4.3% (0% to 13%) compared with 21.2% (11.7% to 35%) in the ORIF group Functional outcomes were reported to be better in the minimally invasive group in all studies; however, the results did not reach statistical significance in some studies. All the studies had methodological flaws that put them at either ‘unclear’ or ‘high’ risk of bias for multiple domains. Overall quality of the available evidence is poor in support of either surgical technique due to small sample size, flaws in study designs and high risk of bias for various elements. Individual studies have reported minimally invasive techniques to be an effective alternative with lower risk of wound complications and better functional outcomes. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:418-425. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170043


2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011417S0002
Author(s):  
Andrew Matson ◽  
Stephen Barchick ◽  
Samuel Adams

Category: Ankle, Trauma Introduction/Purpose: Open approaches are often used for the operative treatment of medial malleolar (MM) fractures. Compared to percutaneous approaches, open approaches may entail an increased risk of operative morbidity, postoperative pain, wound complications, and reoperation for hardware removal. However, inherent to minimally invasive or percutaneous techniques is incomplete fracture visualizationwhich may hinder acceptable reduction. In this study, we aimed to compare patients treated with closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF) to those patients treated with traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). We hypothesized that the two groups would be similar with regard to patient factors, injury variables, and outcomes. Methods: The study group consisted of 184 consecutive patients who met inclusion criteria and were treated with operative fixation of a MM fracture from 2011-2015 at a single institution. Forty underwent CRPF and 144 underwent ORIF. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, treatment methods, and outcome variables were recorded through review of patient charts, radiographs, and operative reports. Results: Patient variables were similar between groups except for years of age, which was greater on average in the CRPF group (55 vs. 48, p = 0.03). The CRPF treatment group had a higher rate of initial open injury (22% vs. 7%, p<0.01), a lower rate of MM fracture comminution (12% vs. 29%, p = 0.03), and a higher rate of provisional external fixation (35% vs. 14%, p<0.01). There was no statistically significant difference observed between the CRPF and ORIF groups with regard to outcomes including: nonunion (2% vs. 3%), malunion (10% vs. 5%), time to union (10 weeks, each), removal of hardware (8% vs. 14%), or wound complications (0% vs. 4%). Conclusion: Both CRPF and ORIF resulted in acceptable radiographic outcomes and low complication rates for the treatment of MM fractures. Compared to the ORIF group, patients in the CRPF group on average were older and more often had comminution, open fractures, and provisional external fixation.


Injury ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (8) ◽  
pp. 1470-1477 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.P.A. Greeven ◽  
J. Van Groningen ◽  
N.W.L. Schep ◽  
E.M.M. Van Lieshout ◽  
M.H.J. Verhofstad

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document